HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED?

[Carl]

Sam CA

You are testing my patience, Sam. We have already covered this in a much earlier post.

Your references to Buddhism are covered by the natural law, expounded by the Catholic Church and based on Scripture … for examples:

From Moses:

“For this command which I have enjoined on you today is not too mysterious and remote for you. It is not up in the sky, that you should say ‘Who will go up in the sky and get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’ Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’ No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out.” Deuteronomy 30:11-14

From Saint Paul:

“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law (the commandments). They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.” Romans 2:14-16

So all mankind have a natural moral sense created in them by God … that includes Buddhists and atheists. Whether that natural law is accepted or denied is another matter altogether. When you say atheists have a moral sense, what you are talking about is the gift God gave them and nothing more. It is more powerful in some atheists than others depending on the proximity of atheists to a solidly Christian influence.

What Christians talk about is how that gift of natural law can be brought to the highest pitch of excellence through the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as opposed to no grace offered
in the atheist or Buddhist scheme of things.

 

[wolpertinger]

Benadam:

What I also hear and very directly from your comments in this post is that the life we do have isn’t really life because there is no reason for it, no purpose.

Definition games. Why do you even ask for the other side’s opinions if you’re not willing to consider them on their own terms?

 

[Benadam]

wolpertinger:

Definition games. Why do you even ask for the other side’s opinions if you’re not willing to consider them on their own terms?

I agree. Please accept my apology. What is meant by " a happy end"?

 

[Idisto]

Lisa N:

Precisely. Apparently he/she hasn’t bothered to read the entire thread as there are several former atheists who have posted, including me. I think it would be a bit arrogant to consider us ignorant. I think he/she is very young and will give him/her benefit of the doubt.

I didn’t say everyone in this thread is ignorant. I didn’t even say most or many. I only implied some people are. There is no arrogance about saying that thinking atheists have no morals is ignorant, is there?

If someone can see through the fallacies, please check the thread on my essay, Why I Am No Longer A Catholic. I really would appreciate feedback on it. Thank you.

 

[Lisa_N]

Idisto:

I didn’t say everyone in this thread is ignorant. I didn’t even say most or many. I only implied some people are. There is no arrogance about saying that thinking atheists have no morals is ignorant, is there?

I don’t think anyone said atheists have no morals, I think people have commented that since professed atheists do have morals may well be evidence that there is a God. Concepts such as natural law that are accepted by the Church as well as the biblical basis, that such morals are written on our hearts, also support their are certain things “hardwired” in. I believe that God is the one who did the wiring and so far none of the atheists have come up with any reasonable alternative explanation.

Morals, the Golden Rule, altruism, are all far more easily explained by God than by some random action of atoms.

Lisa N

]

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

I don’t think anyone said atheists have no morals, I think people have commented that since professed atheists do have morals may well be evidence that there is a God. Concepts such as natural law that are accepted by the Church as well as the biblical basis, that such morals are written on our hearts, also support their are certain things “hardwired” in. I believe that God is the one who did the wiring and so far none of the atheists have come up with any reasonable alternative explanation.

Morals, the Golden Rule, altruism, are all far more easily explained by God than by some random action of atoms.

Lisa N

Random has nothing to do with it. That same wiring can easily be explained as social conditioning or as simply as a sentient ethical development upon the instinctual inhibitions we have biologically. Consider that animals have behaviors which we can choose to describe as moral should we wish. Their presence in man then, heightened due to our self aware nature should hardly be surprising.

You’ve brought up “random” a few times (in different threads0 and it always seems like an allusion to evolution. If thats the case I have to tell you that Randomness plays a very small role there as well.

 

[Idisto]

Lisa N:

I don’t think anyone said atheists have no morals

Actually, they did.
Lisa N:

a TRUE atheist doesn’t have any conscience. any activity that doesn’t cause legal troubles is ok with him. my parents are not quite pure atheists.

.
.
.
Lisa N:

I believe that God is the one who did the wiring and so far none of the atheists have come up with any reasonable alternative explanation.

Morals, the Golden Rule, altruism, are all far more easily explained by God than by some random action of atoms.

The existence of God does nothing to establish morals.

Either
(1) Whatever God commands becomes good, in which case saying “God is good” is nonsense. OR
(2) God commands what is already good. In which case, it would be good whether or not God commanded it.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Random has nothing to do with it. That same wiring can easily be explained as social conditioning or as simply as a sentient ethical development upon the instinctual inhibitions we have biologically. Consider that animals have behaviors which we can choose to describe as moral should we wish. Their presence in man then, heightened due to our self aware nature should hardly be surprising.

So explain how wiring is the result of social conditioning then. You haven’t. Further explain why humans are more self aware than other species. Again, it’s much easier to believe that God created man to be in His image, and thus differentiating him from the animal kingdom.

It’s not simply that humans live in groups. So do ants. But I suspect inter-ant relationships are a bit less complex than our own.

Tlaloc:

You’ve brought up “random” a few times (in different threads0 and it always seems like an allusion to evolution. If thats the case I have to tell you that Randomness plays a very small role there as well.

No, you’ve misread. Further the idea of evolution does not negate the presence of God.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Idisto:

Actually, they did…

Well if so I didn’t notice. Overall I think that very few of us think atheists don’t have a conscious. After all, that we ask how this conscious is formed, presumes that such a conscious exists. The believers understand where their conscious originated. We are just trying to determine if athiests have any explanation for their own situation.

.
.
.

Idisto:

The existence of God does nothing to establish morals.

Either
(1) Whatever God commands becomes good, in which case saying “God is good” is nonsense. OR
(2) God commands what is already good. In which case, it would be good whether or not God commanded it.

Way too simplistic, you only express your opinions, no reasoning behind them. If we who believe in God are right, of course God could establish morals. If God is a moral entity and we are made in God’s image, then we are born to be moral creatures. That some fall away or ignore the writing on their heart does not negate that God exists, that God is moral and that we are made in His image.

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

So explain how wiring is the result of social conditioning then. You haven’t.

No I haven’t but since you asked. That wiring is simply a set of learned behaviors formed from early childhood by watching parents, siblings, and other role models.

Further explain why humans are more self aware than other species.

Because at a certain critical mass of neural pathways sentience is achieved. There are indications that other high order mammals may be sentient or on the threshold of sentience (dolphins for instance)

Again, it’s much easier to believe that God created man to be in His image, and thus differentiating him from the animal kingdom.

Well what’s easy to believe is beside the point. When speaking logically the premise of God is not simpler than the premise of no God.

No, you’ve misread. Further the idea of evolution does not negate the presence of God.

Lisa N

Indeed it does not, but that’s frequently mistaken.

 

[Idisto]

Lisa N:

Way too simplistic, you only express your opinions, no reasoning behind them.

Yes, I did provide reasoning. What part is my opinion?
Lisa N:

If we who believe in God are right, of course God could establish morals.

What does it mean to “establish” morals? Does this just mean issue commands? Then we go back to my dilemma: either murder, for instance, was immoral before God forbade it (which means God isn’t necessary for morality, though He might clarify it) OR God’s command made it immoral (which means that murder would have been OK if he had left it out of the commandments). Which one is it?

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

No I haven’t but since you asked. That wiring is simply a set of learned behaviors formed from early childhood by watching parents, siblings, and other role models. .

I disagree on two levels. First, who taught the ORIGINAL humans morals and ethics? If I learned from my mother and she learned from her mother, how far back do we go? If we started out as some kind of savage creatures, what caused the change? Who inspired it? After all, in the wild so to speak, the human that turned the other cheek would be killled and thus not contribute to the gene pool.

Second, how do you explain people who DONT follow role models bad or good? How do you explain the child from the nice family that hauls off and shoots someone? Conversely, how do you explain a child raised in a savage and violent home who becomes a saint?

Tlaloc:

Because at a certain critical mass of neural pathways sentience is achieved. There are indications that other high order mammals may be sentient or on the threshold of sentience (dolphins for instance) Well what’s easy to believe is beside the point. When speaking logically the premise of God is not simpler than the premise of no God. Indeed it does not, but that’s frequently mistaken.

So what caused the 'critical mass of neurons? How is that explained?

Define ‘sentience’ please as you seem to have a pretty exalted view. I believe Buddhists believe that for example, mammals are sentient in that they think and feel, and thus are not fair game for the dinner table.

As to what’s ‘easy to believe’ this was in reference to the Occam’s Razor comment in that the simplest explanation is often the correct explanation. It is simpler to believe that God designed the world and its creatures than to come through some convoluted random chance that sparked life out of mud and then mutated to create a Mozart. Sorry but that one is a REAL stretch…

Lisa N

 

[Benadam]

Tlaloc:

Random has nothing to do with it. That same wiring can easily be explained as social conditioning or as simply as a sentient ethical development upon the instinctual inhibitions we have biologically. Consider that animals have behaviors which we can choose to describe as moral should we wish. Their presence in man then, heightened due to our self aware nature should hardly be surprising.

You’ve brought up “random” a few times (in different threads0 and it always seems like an allusion to evolution. If thats the case I have to tell you that Randomness plays a very small role there as well.

you mention self awareness as a cause have you considered it as an effect? Where in the animal kingdome do you find the precursors that enable the ability to apprehend eternal realities?

animal behaviours mistaken for morals are behaviours that ensure the survival of the species. The natural law can be said to be based on the same but conscience cannot because it implies the ability to determine behaviour outside of it’s code. This choice is the result of man having two orders of reality to incorporate into a single experience. An order of reality consisting of states of being that are becoming another, and an order of reality that is changeless. The question is from what order of reality did the human animal recieve this ability to apprehend realities that are changeless, eternal. It is more reasonable to think it came from the order that defines it, the ability to apprehend eternal realities came from the eternal order of reality.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

I disagree on two levels. First, who taught the ORIGINAL humans morals and ethics? If I learned from my mother and she learned from her mother, how far back do we go? If we started out as some kind of savage creatures, what caused the change? Who inspired it? After all, in the wild so to speak, the human that turned the other cheek would be killled and thus not contribute to the gene pool.

They may have developed as extensions of our instinctual behaviors as I said. If you watch the great apes you’ll find they have startlingly human like behaviors despite not being fully sentient (as far as we know)

Second, how do you explain people who DONT follow role models bad or good? How do you explain the child from the nice family that hauls off and shoots someone? Conversely, how do you explain a child raised in a savage and violent home who becomes a saint?

I can’t paraphrase all of psychology into a post. Suffice it to say that an individual has a huge variety of influences which may disrupt what we consider to be normal development. Mental illness for example. Barring that the individual is formed in great part by the rolemodels they observe growing up.

So what caused the 'critical mass of neurons? How is that explained?

As humans evolved their brains became more and more complex eventually becoming sentient.

Define ‘sentience’ please as you seem to have a pretty exalted view. I believe Buddhists believe that for example, mammals are sentient in that they think and feel, and thus are not fair game for the dinner table.

There can be a great deal of argument about where precisely we divide sentience from simply advanced animal behaviors. In general Sentience denotes a self awareness beyond simply feeling nerve impulses. A dog doesn’t realize it’s hungry, it simply is hungry.

As to what’s ‘easy to believe’ this was in reference to the Occam’s Razor comment in that the simplest explanation is often the correct explanation. It is simpler to believe that God designed the world and its creatures than to come through some convoluted random chance that sparked life out of mud and then mutated to create a Mozart. Sorry but that one is a REAL stretch…

Lisa N

No it isn’t. Again this is a well defined logical term that you are using incorrectly. The postulate with the least number of unsupported premises is the most likely. Everything you’ve described can be explained with well supported physical sciences and hence requires no unsupported premise. Postulating God started everything requires at least one unsupported premise (the existence of God) possibly more depending on how you say God started things. Hence by Occam’s Razor the postulate without God is simpler.

I don’t know how to put this more clearly but you are mistaken. I understand that by using terms like “simple” its tempting to put in our everyday definitions but thats not the case.

 

[zootjeff]

Lisa N:

OK you have expressed your opinion. Any evidence to back up your claim?

Lisa N

Of course not. If any of us had evidence of our claim, there would be no arguments, there would be no faith, and this fourm wouldn’t exist. I know “I” have never seen Santa flying across the sky though.

If in a court of law you plea: “God told me to do this.” You would be locked up for being insane. No Joke.

 

[zootjeff]

Carl:

WOLPERTINGER

One man’s happiness has been misery for millions!

Try again:

To what end?

True,

How many of us drive SUVs?

Ponder that one.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

They may have developed as extensions of our instinctual behaviors as I said. If you watch the great apes you’ll find they have startlingly human like behaviors despite not being fully sentient (as far as we know) .

But that’s the operative term–may have–as far as we know–so you are equivocating. As you said we DONT know and frankly on the surface it makes no sense whatsoever. Explain the PURPOSE of music? Explain the PURPOSE of being able to recognize beauty? I look at a beautiful green field, sparkling with dew and I feel uplifted. My horse looks at it and sees lunch.

Tlaloc:

I can’t paraphrase all of psychology into a post. Suffice it to say that an individual has a huge variety of influences which may disrupt what we consider to be normal development. Mental illness for example. Barring that the individual is formed in great part by the rolemodels they observe growing up…

You can’t paraphrase psychology because it too is merely a figament of someone’s imagination. It’s not empirical science. Very little can be proven. A theory about cause or treatment may find favor and then be completely rejected. How many “mental illnesses” magically morphed into normal behaviors?

Psychology is hardly a standard that would prove ANYTHING except you can convince a lot of people you know a lot more than you do know.

As to role models, riddle me this batman, how did the child of two atheists become a Catholic? I don’t remember KNOWING any Catholics when I was a kid and I do remember being terrified of religious in their habits and wimples.

I guess it’s just one of those mysteries?

Tlaloc:

As humans evolved their brains became more and more complex eventually becoming sentient.

Again why? And why did humans become more sentient and other animals did not? Do you think horses of today are more sentient than horses of thousands of years ago?

Further one of the great advantages of humans is the ability to compile learning and pass it on through multiple generations. No other animal can do that. How did that happen?

Tlaloc:

There can be a great deal of argument about where precisely we divide sentience from simply advanced animal behaviors. In general Sentience denotes a self awareness beyond simply feeling nerve impulses. A dog doesn’t realize it’s hungry, it simply is hungry.

How do you KNOW a dog is or is not self aware? Do you hear their thought patterns? Have you ever owned a dog? Observed their behavior? They seem pretty aware of themselves if you ask me.

Tlaloc:

No it isn’t. Again this is a well defined logical term that you are using incorrectly. The postulate with the least number of unsupported premises is the most likely. Everything you’ve described can be explained with well supported physical sciences and hence requires no unsupported premise. Postulating God started everything requires at least one unsupported premise (the existence of God) possibly more depending on how you say God started things. Hence by Occam’s Razor the postulate without God is simpler.

I don’t know how to put this more clearly but you are mistaken. I understand that by using terms like “simple” its tempting to put in our everyday definitions but thats not the case.

Sorry but you have NEVER addressed the uniqueness of humans. Why are we compassionate? Altruistic? Why do we love something when their is no logical reason? Why do we create and appreciate beautiful music? Why do we create beautiful art? Dance? There are so many things that cannot be explained away by laws of gravity and such.

Atheists can reason through unessential things but they fail miserably to provide any basis for the greatness of creation.

LIsa N

 

[zootjeff]

Benadam:

I believe it’s the unbelieving who have the burden of proving God doesn’t exist. It’s just that there IS no evidence to support the claim.

Yup your right. When the majority of people in the world believe in some form of God, it is the unbelievers that have the harder time voicing their views. Just look at **Galileo **when he tried to convince people the world isn’t flat.

I think this is the last generation that won’t be a biggoted majority twards Gays. The majority of Young people are for gay marriage for example. Old people die, young people get old.

It is human nature to keep the values and ideas that were given to you as a child. The majority of people that are born athiests stay athiests and those born christians stay christians and they both have their reasons, a few divert in both directions.

I know a lot of people get happiness from practicing their religion, I have no problem with that. I simply just get annoyed and frustrated spending my time on any religious acts so I stay away from them.

I think a lot of athiests are more moral than some christians. Many athiests view animals as having more worth than many christians give animals credit for. Christians justify killing animals because they were put on the earth by God to do what they please with.

I think you have to define moral to make any kind of arugment about it. The difference between right and wrong is way too vauge.

How does everyone feel about the 10 americans that got killed in Iraq today when we just had a Tsunami that killed 100,000 people!
I’ll bet you all feel different about it now. And I bet it doesn’t effect you as much because you know most of them are not american, but you’re in awhh from the sheer numbers, but your not as vengent mad because Osama didn’t cause it.

Now is that right? Is that wrong? What does a Christian concience say about that an athiest one doesn’t?

 

[Benadam]

Idisto:

Yes, I did provide reasoning. What part is my opinion?

What does it mean to “establish” morals? Does this just mean issue commands? Then we go back to my dilemma: either murder, for instance, was immoral before God forbade it (which means God isn’t necessary for morality, though He might clarify it) OR God’s command made it immoral (which means that murder would have been OK if he had left it out of the commandments). Which one is it?

awareness of one’s self as distinct from our environment ran parallell with awareness of ‘other’ as well. It followed naturally when living in communion with others that what we didn’t want done to us we wouldn’t do to others.

If ya don’t want to be murdered don’t be a murderer is a natural concept that was born with humanity.

The real question is why did this ability to percieve ourselves like this happen? How may be answered one day but the why will tell all.

 

[Benadam]

zootjeff:

Yup your right. When the majority of people in the world believe in some form of God, it is the unbelievers that have the harder time voicing their views. Just look at **Galileo **when he tried to convince people the world isn’t flat.

I think this is the last generation that won’t be a biggoted majority twards Gays. The majority of Young people are for gay marriage for example. Old people die, young people get old.

It is human nature to keep the values and ideas that were given to you as a child. The majority of people that are born athiests stay athiests and those born christians stay christians and they both have their reasons, a few divert in both directions.

I know a lot of people get happiness from practicing their religion, I have no problem with that. I simply just get annoyed and frustrated spending my time on any religious acts so I stay away from them.

I think a lot of athiests are more moral than some christians. Many athiests view animals as having more worth than many christians give animals credit for. Christians justify killing animals because they were put on the earth by God to do what they please with.

I think you have to define moral to make any kind of arugment about it. The difference between right and wrong is way too vauge.

How does everyone feel about the 10 americans that got killed in Iraq today when we just had a Tsunami that killed 100,000 people!
I’ll bet you all feel different about it now. And I bet it doesn’t effect you as much because you know most of them are not american, but you’re in awhh from the sheer numbers, but your not as vengent mad because Osama didn’t cause it.

Now is that right? Is that wrong? What does a Christian concience say about that an athiest one doesn’t?

I think you make some good points, most have been answered on this thread already. We’re all human and it has been agreed on this thread that conscience is inherent. There is also agreement that it’s foundation of correctness is a law that has been refered to without objection as the natural law. That law becomes distorted before we ever make moral choices and the conscience becomes errant in it’s judgements. The struggle is to reform it correctly and the theme of the thread is a discussion on how an atheists conscience is formed.

As far as the comparison of lives lost in a natural disaster and lives lost at the hands of a man, one is a moral issue the other is not.